7 Facts About AE911Truth and Building 7

Adapted from Building What?’s 7 facts

1) If nano-thermite caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever and only nano-thermite-induced demolition of a steel-frame high-rise.

2) Building 7’s collapse was extensively examined in the NIST NCSTAR 1A final report.

3) Most people don’t know about WTC 7 because coverage went largely to the collapses where people died and because the building collapsed late on an event-filled day.

4) It took AE911Truth seven years to even get 1,000 architects and engineers sold on their version of how Building 7 fell.

5) The vast majority of architects and engineers accept the NIST final report. Others dispute various aspects of it, but accept that fire caused the collapses.

6) Even AE911Truth admits that a controlled demolition concieved and executed on the day of 9/11 is impossible, so the discussions on the ground of possibly demolishing the building is a moot point. It couldn’t have been done that day.

7) Building 7 was in operation 24/7, with people coming and going at all hours of the day and night. Any attempt to place nano-thermite charges on core and perimeter columns would have been noticed.

Building 7 was so far away from the WTC complex, so very far away, that the access ramp for the entire complex went under the east side of the building. So very far away that a whole building was between it and the North Tower…

Oh, my goodness I can’t even describe how far away Building 7 was from the North Tower, plus Building 6 was between them.

And I like this picture of the debris pile of Building 7 so much, I’m using it myself:

There the debris pile is, stacked up neatly in the footprint of WTC 7. Except the building seems to have been built across a four-lane road, because its debris pile is all the way over the street against Fiterman Hall, as you can plainly see.

And what about WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6? Well, the funny thing about WTC 3 is that it did completely collapse. Debris from the South Tower knocked a huge gash into the building, and then the North Tower took out the rest of the building. 4, 5, and 6 were also much smaller buildings than 1, 2, and 7 as you can see from the illustration above. They simply weren’t dealing with the mass and weight of upper floors as 1, 2, and 7.

But other than that, Building What? may have a point. Somewhere.

September 7, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · 3 Comments
Tags: , ,  · Posted in: AE911Truth, WTC 7

3 Responses

  1. Lauren - September 17, 2010

    None of these so-called facts (number 2 for instance is opinion only) address the rate of collapse, which was at free fall speed, which NIST has recently admitted thanks to AE9/11! I’d like to see someone address the very simple physical fact that the building fell at the rate of free-fall. How is that possible?

  2. Joseph Nobles - September 18, 2010

    These facts are parallel to the “facts” I’m responding to. Since Building What? did not mention the free fall acceleration in this particular list, I didn’t mention it either. However, I’ve written a page on the subject, and you can find that here. Free fall was possible for that 2.25 second period because during the 13+ seconds before, all other supports for the building had failed.

  3. Joseph Nobles - September 18, 2010

    Also, I cannot believe you say a characterization of the NIST final report as extensive is “opinion only.” You obviously have never read the report and its accompaning studies.